Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Niceotropic t1_j95y6z8 wrote

Then its intravenous nature should be what is described. IV ascorbic acid is not new, nor were the pharmacokinetics of IV ascorbic acid a mystery.


Pretty-Theory-5738 t1_j973pod wrote

Technically you could also deliver a low dose intravenously as well, so that’s not really a complete descriptor either. A more clear descriptor for a lay audience might be “high dose intravenous”.

But this actually still misses a small nuance, which can be understood once we know the context of how scientists tend to use the jargon of “pharmacological dose”. In bio research, we use this term mainly in contrast with “biological dose”. A biological dose refers to something relatively within the range of what could occur naturally within the body, through food consumption and/or the body’s creation of that chemical, depending on which chemical we’re talking about.

A ‘pharmacological dose’ is something significantly higher than what would occur naturally in the body. In this case with vitamin C, it’s more possible to achieve a “pharmacological dose” through IV (although with many other chemicals you can achieve a “pharmacological” dose orally if there’s not much restriction on absorption). Anyways, the point is that even saying “high dose” is not fully informative, because the scientist could be referring to just a high ‘biological dose’. Saying pharmaceutical dose gives a nod to the relative scale of the dose that we’re talking about.


Niceotropic t1_j97qcsj wrote

High dose intravenous would be good for the informed audience. Pharmacological is a superficial meaningless superlative term in this context.


Innundator t1_j96ievd wrote

Your argument is that there should be no differentiation between a rock containing iron, and an actual hammer composed entirely of iron. Because it'd be confusing to call them both anything but iron.

The difference between a pharmacological dose and what's found in an orange is many orders of magnitude, which warrants a new term.


Time8u t1_j96r9dw wrote

No new term is needed. It should be called "intravenous" vitamin C. Calling it "pharmacological" is a way of making something that is concrete and simple abstract instead and whoever came up with it is intentionally trying to make this appear more sophisticated than it actually is.


Innundator t1_j96y7ye wrote

You should tell the people doing the research! You're obviously more aware of how things work than they are, and that they haven't heard from you yet is really a travesty of science.

Why are you hiding your brilliance from the world